(cont. from § 6) Forest policy (cont. MJU12)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the Member for the speech she gave before the question period began!

At home, I have on several occasions met with members from the GS union. They have told me about how several sawmills are reducing their shifts. Many are also laying off their employees. The layoffs are due to continued low domestic consumption of timber products, which is primarily due to the fact that the construction industry is at a standstill. No housing is being built with this government.

The sawmill industry is incredibly important and contributes to jobs throughout the country, but these sawmill workers are now becoming part of the enormous unemployment spreading across our country. This is an issue that should, to the highest degree, engage the government and its representatives.

My question to the member is what is being done to increase the domestic demand for sawn timber and also to secure the raw material supply.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for very important questions!

The unemployment that we see in Sweden today is deeply concerning, and it is important that those who become unemployed are given the opportunity to retrain, upskill, or educate themselves for another profession so that they perhaps do not need to move but can stay. In that regard, Arbetsförmedlingen has an important role. It is also the case that while we have high unemployment, we simultaneously have a severe skills shortage. The matching does not always work so well.

A lot is being done, but it can certainly be done more. The situation has only become even more difficult over the last few weeks with Northvolt's bankruptcy, so it is important to work on the issue.

This is not my area of expertise, so I cannot answer exactly in detail what the government is doing. But I know that there is concern about the situation and that work is being done on the issues so that people can be able to transition.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thanks to the member for the answers!

The supply of raw materials is about wood from our forests, and one has problems getting that from the outside given everything that is happening in our forests now. I am thinking of the species protection and that one simply is not allowed to log one's forest, but also much more.

Too little is being built, and too little is being built in wood. Here we really lack proposals and ideas from the government. We need to build in this country, and we need to build more in wood.

I was involved in the issue of species protection, and that was also in the member's speech. I have also raised it previously. In the member's speech, we could hear that the species protection investigation is moving forward, three months delayed. When will the species protection investigation submit proposals that can move this work forward so that the forest owners who are waiting get answers?

We also have this issue with the birds. How will the birds be handled? It sounds as if the birds are not even included, and how then can one achieve a holistic solution to this so that our forest owners do not continue to be squeezed?

In this speech, Björn Petersson (S) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Malin Larsson, for raising the species protection in the exchange of remarks! It is a very important issue, and it is truly important that we find a good solution to it. I share the problem description that the member describes.

It is exactly so: Work is being carried out at a high pace on the issue at the Government Offices within the framework of this investigation. I cannot give any specific date, but the work continues. Things are happening, and soon it will be known what is happening.

It was said that the investigation would be delivered at the turn of the year. Now that did not happen; a few months have passed over time. It is a complex issue, and it is better that it is done correctly than that things are done quickly and incorrectly.

There is a great consensus in the government cooperation that we need to find a good system for species protection issues, and it will be delivered soon.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! One becomes a bit confused when one has taken a reply to a speech delivered two hours ago because the Thursdays look the way they do. But I believe I can decipher my notes.

The Chairman of the Committee stated in his speech that the government is now taking the necessary steps for biodiversity and ensuring forest utility. It is also important with freedom under responsibility and control over one's own forest.

In my speech and also in previous exchanges of remarks, I spoke about the legislation and the regulations that we have to follow when it comes to the forest. When it comes to biodiversity and the climate side, we are not delivering. This is not a freely chosen work. We have several times mentioned the OECD report that addresses Swedish forestry, and we have the in-depth evaluation that addresses our Swedish environmental goals.

While this debate has been ongoing, the Climate Policy Council has submitted its report. One of the things they say is that there is an urgency to do things in the near term and that the government must present proposals regarding the forest. The work that the Environmental Goals Commission has done and which the minister referred to yesterday when she was with us in the committee is not sufficient; we must do something now.

Since Elin Nilsson belongs to the same party as the Minister for the Environment and the Liberals also sit in the government, I want to ask what the government is doing in the near term. How does one ensure that the necessary steps are taken for biodiversity and for the climate? The statistics say that one is not doing it.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Emma Nohrén, for the question!

It becomes a bit confusing when one has held their speech a few hours ago and then is supposed to have an exchange of remarks. When things also happen during the break that one hasn't had time to familiarize oneself with, it becomes even more confusing. I will nevertheless make an attempt to answer the member's questions.

Sweden has high goals, and we shall achieve the goals we have. It is important that we live up to our international commitments. Then it is complex and not always easy, but we are working to take the measures that are needed, and there, that very partial report which the Environmental Goals Commission delivered earlier this spring is an important part. There are many proposals there that are now being prepared in the Government Offices, and it is a way to get some distance even if it may require more than what is proposed in that report. The work continues.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Emma Nohrén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Elin Nilsson, for the answer!

It is not the intention to blame the member for what has happened. I have hardly had time to read it myself, but I noticed that the Climate Policy Council also points out that what the Environmental Goals Preparatory Committee proposes is not sufficient. The Green Party as a party did not think so either and has also placed a reservation, so for me it was no news. But now we have also evaluated it.

It sounds good that those proposals are being taken further, but I would still like to ask the member again: What more is being done, for example, for biodiversity? What about the compensation issues regarding the forest – is there money, so that one actually gets paid? Will we see such a package?

On the climate issue, things must happen in the near term, and the forest is an important part of that. When it comes to biodiversity, it is about things that are ongoing and things that must be done in the near term so that we do not destroy environments that take a very long time to restore. At the same time, we must have a sustainable use so that we do not destroy our economy. But what is in the government's pipeline to ensure that this triple helix is solved?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Elin Nilsson (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank Emma Nohrén for the questions.

When it comes to the compensation issue, there is a proposal that was presented in the partial report that the forestry investigation submitted before Christmas. It is also an issue that the species protection investigation is handling. It is a very important issue.

It is fundamental and crucial that the landowners who are faced with the fact that there are species on their land that prevent them from using the forest receive compensation. This requires that we have a system that works purely bureaucratically. It does not do that today. Even if the outcome actually sometimes becomes good for the landowner, it often takes a long time and is very complicated. Sometimes there is not enough money. As a party, we advocate for there to be more money in the budget; we work for that in the negotiations.

This is, as mentioned, part of the review of forest policy that is currently underway. The issue of compensation is very important there. When the species protection investigation is subsequently presented, that question will have been examined. We ask to be allowed to return with more precision on the matter.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 15.

When we now debate forest policy again, we can observe that it is approximately the same issues that are being handled this year as last year. It is not particularly strange. Forest is a long-term political area. The current Swedish Forestry Act came into effect a little more than 30 years ago. This can be perceived as a fairly long time, but for forests that are to grow for nearly a hundred years before they are harvested, it is a short time in context.

It is difficult at all to evaluate all the consequences of the change that occurred in the 90s. The older forest that is evaluated based on nature values today is forest that was mainly cultivated during a time when nature considerations were lower. In the 90s, Swedish forest policy was formulated based on freedom under responsibility. Everything indicates that this has been fantastically successful. It has gone in the right direction regarding both production and nature values.

Madam Speaker! Much of the debate that paints a bleak picture of the state of Swedish forests takes place in relation to the environmental goal Living Forests. Whether the fulfillment of the goal is relevant or not in an assessment of the state depends on how the goal is designed. We want to assert that it is a fact that this goal is incorrectly designed. According to our agencies, the goal cannot be reached even if we cease active forestry. One should rightly reflect on this systemic error and the inefficiency in how many officials and agencies devote themselves to evaluating a goal that is incorrectly designed.

Madam Speaker! According to this view, it is asserted that Sweden must set aside more forest from use. But this is based, we claim, on misleading comparisons with other countries. If the protected forest increases, the result could be harder exploitation of the remaining areas, which we see as a bad solution. We believe that the forest, from Skåne to Lappland, should be managed sustainably to support biodiversity and forest production without being divided into strictly protected and intensively managed zones.

Furthermore, private forest owners' usufruct rights are threatened if the protection is extended, which is unreasonable both economically and legally. The Swedish model presupposes trust between forest owners and authorities. State governance should be less detailed, especially considering the large proportion of privately owned forest. Over a quarter of the forest is already exempted from active use – a high level globally – and much of this occurs voluntarily through the forest owners' efforts, which is exemplary. Through international definitions, the commitments Sweden has entered into should not be a problem. We should reasonably be able to fulfill this already today without taking more land out of production.

Madam Speaker! Things are happening in the investigative process when it comes to the forest. Since the last parliamentary meeting, two reports have been presented: a partial report from the latest forest investigation and a report from the Environmental Goals Commission focusing on how we should handle new EU legislation.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we welcome the partial consideration from the forest investigation. It proposes, among other things, simplified requirements for logging notifications and consultations to facilitate forestry. This is positive. Today's process is far too administratively time-consuming. The investigation also proposes a right to compensation in the event of restrictions, which would mean significantly improved conditions compared to today. Furthermore, proposals are submitted that aim to enable more efficient and less conflict-ridden administrative review.

What was not included in this investigation were the species protection issues. The government chose to place them in a separate investigation internally at the Government Offices, which has been discussed in the debate here today. From the Sweden Democrats' side, we can only regret that it was chosen to be done in this way. It would have been better to handle the species protection issues in the large forest investigation. Unfortunately, it is the case that forest issues during this mandate period have been handled in perhaps up to four different investigations. That the process is fragmented in that way is nothing positive. But we hear from the government parties that this investigation is about to be completed, and we are, of course, eagerly awaiting the conclusions. Hopefully, one can resolve problematic regulations regarding both orchids and birds.

From the Sweden Democrats' side, we have a constructive cooperation with the government, but we have no organized cooperation in the forest policy area. If we do not find that the investigation is perfectly conducted and are not satisfied with the proposals that come from it, we are naturally open to going to the other parties in the Riksdag to try to formulate proposals that are sufficiently good. But we must, of course, wait and see what comes out of the species protection investigation.

Madam Speaker! We are not as welcoming towards the Environment Goals Commission's recently presented report. The Sweden Democrats do, however, stand behind the report thanks to a positive development of the final product. The problem here is not how the directives were handled in the investigation, but the problem is the directives to the investigation, which derive from European legislation.

We see this problem in many areas of forest policy. The European Union lacks powers according to the treaties but has, through environmental and climate policy, acquired unacceptable powers in the forest policy area. It concerns nearly a dozen different legislative proposals that directly or indirectly affect the possibilities of conducting forestry in our country. This is, of course, not acceptable. The LULUCF regulation is a good example of a directly counterproductive climate policy legal act which, if implemented by the countries, will complicate the work of transition and likely lead to increased emissions on the planet. The primary priority from the Sweden Democrats' side is to change this regulation. It is significantly more important than finding out how to achieve what it stipulates.

Madam Speaker! The Sweden Democrats are a technology-optimistic party. In this context, the possibilities for tree breeding are important to highlight. Active efforts are currently underway in this area, which we welcome. A council for the forest industry's value chain has been established, the investments in Skogsskadecentrum continue, and the Sweden Democrats' initiative to combat elm and ash disease with the help of tree breeding is ongoing. This is a very positive development. When we had an Environment Party minister, there was not the same belief in technology, but the solution was constantly to try to protect more land – a policy that surely would have been the death of these tree species. Now there is hope even for elm and ash.

In this speech, Mattias Eriksson Falk (SD) agreed.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member, for the speech!

Member of Parliament Kinnunen himself raised the issue of species protection with the Minister for Climate and Environment here in the chamber during the question period. Today we have heard that it is moving forward, that it is approaching, and that there is a great consensus. Then one wonders why nothing is happening and why the forest owners are forced to wait for a decision.

That the member himself takes up the issue with the minister in the chamber can be considered a bit surprising, since the Sverigedemokraterna is still the largest party in the government base. Now, the member himself touched on this a little bit in the speech, but does Sverigedemokraterna, as the largest party in the government base, have any insight or any influence regarding the forestry issues, especially regarding the species protection issue? That question is indeed the most important question for our forest owners now.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! The basis for the Sweden Democrats' cooperation with the government is the Tidö Agreement. Forestry issues are not found in the Tidö Agreement. Forestry issues can be linked to the budget in certain contexts, but when it comes to the species protection regulatory framework, there is no formalized cooperation between the Sweden Democrats and the government. We have no insight into the internal investigation at the Government Offices.

We are, just like the Social Democrats, concerned that this is being delayed. It is an important investigation, and we must get a more purposeful species protection framework in place. We cannot have the situation that we have today. It also risks becoming very high costs if, at the same time, the right to compensation is introduced.

The answer to the question is simply no. Sverigedemokraterna have no insight into the investigation. We wait and see what becomes of it. We also stand completely free within the framework of the parliamentary work and work for legislation that is as purpose-oriented as possible.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Malin Larsson (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, the member, for the answer so far!

Then I interpret that as the Sweden Democrats not prioritizing the forest, despite the power they hold. That you also do not include the forest in the Tidö Agreement shows that you do not consider this to be so important.

Forestry policy and the forestry industry are therefore not included in the Tidö agreement, but it is still a policy and an industry that is incredibly important for Sweden. Is forestry then a deprioritized issue for the Sverigedemokraterna?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Martin Kinnunen (SD)

Madam Speaker! It definitely is not. If this is a priority issue for the Social Democrats and one is dissatisfied with what emerges from the government's work regarding species protection, one is welcome to contact the Sweden Democrats! We can sit down and reach an agreement, if it is the case that the government is not performing well in this area.

On the other hand, we generally have a good cooperation with the government. I think that the forest policy that has been conducted during the mandate period has taken many steps forward. The directives to the forest inquiry, for which we have received a partial report, point in a fantastically good direction, I must say.

I still have a good confidence that this will result in something good. But if it does not, the Sverigedemokraterna are free, and then we can also talk with the Socialdemokraterna. Whether the will to talk with Sverigedemokraterna about the best for forestry exists among the Socialdemokraterna remains to be seen. Those are not the signals I am getting from the Socialdemokraterna, but we are prepared to talk with all parties in the Riksdag to enable a forest policy that is as good as possible.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! The OECD report was recently released, in which Sweden's environmental performance is reviewed. There, it is pointed out that forestry in Sweden has serious deficiencies, that forestry is not sustainable and that it does not reach the environmental goals. It is said that long-term intensive forestry and standardized clear-cutting forestry have had negative effects on forest environments. Sweden is not on the right track to reach the goals for sustainable forests by 2030.

The ability to bind carbon dioxide from the air is threatened. Biodiversity is threatened. This is due to the fact that logging has increased sharply and that areas are protected to too small an extent.

Madam Speaker! The total carbon uptake could be greater today with forestry where trees are allowed to grow older or through the protection of more forest. A significant portion of today's carbon sink occurs on forest land that is not used for timber production, for example, formally protected forests.

Vänsterpartiet considers, in line with the OECD, that Swedish forestry as a whole is not to be regarded as sustainable. Our position is that production goals need to be subordinate to environmental considerations. If we are to achieve sustainable forestry, the supply of raw materials cannot in practice be the sole determining factor for how our forests are managed. Nature's limits with preserved ecosystems need to be the framework for how the forests are utilized.

That we use our forest resources in a sustainable way is crucial for us to meet both the climate crisis and the depletion of biodiversity. To break the trend of carbon storage becoming increasingly worse in Sweden, we in Vänsterpartiet believe that a large number of measures are required for Swedish forestry to become sustainable. Most urgent is to put a stop to the logging of forests with high natural values. Then more carbon can be stored and biodiversity can be strengthened.

It is also of great importance that landowners can, to an increased extent, receive compensation for storing carbon and preserving biodiversity and other ecosystem services, and thereby contributing to the common goods that promote a more sustainable society for all of us and for future generations.

Madam Speaker! Smaller forest areas with high nature values are not suitable as nature reserves, but it is important that the state can provide compensation to landowners to formally protect these areas in the long term. The Swedish Forest Agency can, in these cases, establish nature conservation agreements and biotope protection areas. It is particularly important that there are resources for forest owners with smaller forest holdings but with a large proportion of high nature values.

Madam Speaker! We also consider that clear-cutting should be phased out in the long term to safeguard the forest's function as a carbon sink and to protect biodiversity. That being said, this must naturally be adapted according to forest type and according to where in the country one is located. The State should, through its agencies, actively contribute to this through financial transition support, development, research, and advice for clear-cut-free forestry methods.

Madam Speaker! The Swedish mountain-adjacent forest is a unique area with large old-growth forests and high natural values. The old-growth forests in the mountain area are some of the few intact forest landscapes that still exist in Europe.

We in Vänsterpartiet consider it to be of the highest priority that these forests are protected. But in recent years, there has been high pressure to have them logged. In May last year, Ekot revealed that unprotected old-growth forests are being logged at a high pace. If I remember correctly, it was 6,000 hectares that had been clear-cut over four years. Due to large savings requirements on Skogsstyrelsen, they had not managed to review the reports that had come in, which resulted in clearances for a third of the reports.

Now, only small areas of old-growth forest remain in Sweden. The larger areas that nevertheless exist are largely linked to the forests near the mountains.

The preservation of these slow-growing forests is an important part of the fight against global warming. They store large amounts of carbon in both living and dead biomass and also in the soil layer. We need to protect the mountain-adjacent forest, not cut it down.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I move for approval of reservation 16, which concerns precisely the protection of forests near the mountains.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kajsa Fredholm, for the speech!

There are quite a few parts here that I would like to highlight. From Kajsa Fredholm's presentation, it sounds as if forests are shaped by themselves in some way. Kajsa Fredholm subtracts the human influence, at least the positive human influence. A forest is shaped by the forest owner. The forest does not become what it becomes just because it stands there. It is actually landowners who manage their forests.

Just that part regarding the ownership perspective, we heard nothing about in the speech from Kajsa Fredholm. Vänsterpartiet has a history regarding how one views ownership and private ownership. Is it perhaps this that lies behind it here as well?

It is possible that I listened poorly, but one word that I did not hear at all in the speech was the word bioeconomy. It is therefore about making use of what the forest provides. I could at least not hear that word.

Kajsa Fredholm spoke about clear-cutting, about how we would move away from it, and about the state then providing financial support. Then I must ask Kajsa Fredholm: Where are those funds to be found? This is not just about financial support for forest owners. Here, it is an entire industry that must transition. It concerns forest contractors. It concerns those who drive timber trucks. It concerns sawmills, paper mills, and so on. The entire industry must transition, because it will not receive enough raw materials. Where is Kajsa Fredholm going to find this money if we are to do as Vänsterpartiet wishes?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Kjell-Arne, who is the one who is diligent and requests a reply to my speech! I truly appreciate that.

I know that we have talked about property rights before. It is constitutionally protected. We have no opinions on it and do not want to change it. That question is, therefore, easy to answer.

Then there is the matter of the bioeconomy. I did not mention in my speech that we, of course, need to cultivate the forest and use the raw material that we extract. But the cultivation needs to take place in a sustainable way. There we are probably not quite in agreement, because we consider that the extraction now is too large.

Then we come to the green transition. It must, of course, also apply to the forest. We know that. We in Vänsterpartiet have budgeted for climate investments of 700 billion over ten years. Among other things, this transition must, of course, also apply to the forestry industry.

We need to try to get more long-term products, as Malin very rightly pointed out. Timber house construction, for example, has been raised earlier in the debate. We need to do more of this. But the extraction from the forest needs to take place in a sustainable way.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kjell-Arne Ottosson (KD)

Madam Speaker! Yes, when it comes to what constitutes sustainable forestry, I do not think we will reach an agreement. There, we must agree that we do not agree. It is that simple.

A former Prime Minister has said: He who is in debt is not free. If we are to borrow money to manage the transition that Kajsa Fredholm mentions, future generations will face a pure misery in handling the enormous debt. It means an enormous debt if we are to borrow as much as is actually needed to transition in the way that Kajsa Fredholm mentions.

Find the finance minister who actually manages to produce those funds and who manages to handle this! I do not believe that Kajsa Fredholm will find that one, perhaps not even – if we are to be completely honest – within Vänsterpartiet.

The green industries sequester 93 percent of their own emissions. There is no other industry that sequesters as much of its own emissions as the green industries do. Thus, they provide a huge value. It is about this with storing carbon, and it is clear that Vänsterpartiet and Kajsa Fredholm favor it. But if we are to transition, it is not just about storing carbon. It is also about eliminating carbon and using materials from the forest to replace CO2-intensive materials. That is a real transition.

Then the question is again: How are we to manage if we are to reduce forestry and if we are not to harvest? If we cannot use the material from the forest, what shall we use then?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Madam Speaker! As I answered in the previous contribution, we are not against substitution at all. It is rather the extent of the extraction in the forest that must be sustainable.

We need to use this for long-term products. We need to build houses in wood. We use it for biofuels and in heating plants and other things. We will, of course, continue with that. But there we are not in agreement that we need to lower the level of this in the near term.

I also want to say that I think we have a great threat, and it is the climate crisis. We cannot afford for the temperature to rise at the rate it is currently doing. That is the reason for our policy.

There are conflicts today regarding the management and use of the Swedish forest. One party sees the forest solely as a cultivation system, and the other party sees it as an ecosystem. Here we must find a harmony, so that it is possible to manage both.

The climate crisis is accelerating. We are in a bad position, and we need to act now. Even the forestry system needs to be integrated into the framework of the climate crisis.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Helena Lindahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I want to begin by moving to approve the Centerpartiet's reservation 20 on species protection, land use restrictions, and compensation. I naturally stand behind all of our reservations, but as we usually say: For the sake of time, one has to make a choice.

Owning and managing forest in Sweden has historically been seen as a very secure investment. But in recent years, that image has changed. It is actually incomprehensible that in a country where ownership rights are formally to be constitutionally protected, we find ourselves in a reality where private forest owners risk being indebted as a result of the state's bureaucracy and interpretations of laws and regulations.

Now, admittedly, several different forest inquiries are underway where the purpose is to strengthen the right of use, which is very good. I really look forward to that. The larger forest inquiry has a very good investigator. I feel a bit less certain about what the species protection inquiry will deliver, but we shall see what it delivers.

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but mention something about mountain-adjacent forest. In Västerbotten, there is a part of the mountain-adjacent forest chain.

I hear parties saying that the mountain forest is threatened and that it is being logged on a large scale. That is to mislead the public. The forest near the mountains is more than four and a half times as large as the entirety of Stockholm County. Every year, areas that amount to barely two Nackareservat are cultivated, if one includes the water.

It should also be pointed out that the forest near the mountains covers almost 3 million hectares. The largest part is today either formally exempted from forestry or voluntarily set aside. And in the remaining, productive forest, extremely limited areas are cultivated. In the millions of hectares, it is estimated that between 1,000 and 2,000 hectares will be subject to some type of logging every year, often with different types of consideration measures.

Even in a pure fantasy scenario where all felling were removed, it would take thousands of years to work through that entire area, and a significant part of the forest would, in the meantime, have time to both die naturally and self-regenerate. Since felling in Sweden requires different types of considerations when there are natural values and since felling requires replantings, new forest is constantly being added which also grows and ages.

Madam Speaker! With that said, I want to go back to the question of species protection. It is perhaps the most important issue in Forest Sweden right now, and many here have debated it today.

Inventories from private individuals and various groups are today largely targeted specifically at land that has been reported for logging. Often, they search for commonly occurring species that I would say are legally convenient. It is therefore not uncommon species that are sought, but commonly occurring species that can be used as tools in the fight against private ownership.

Yes, it sounds tough, but I can say it again.

Knärot is perhaps the most obvious example. The reporting of individual specimens of knärot has increased by 1,700 percent in a few years. In a single year, over 350,000 specimens were reported, even though only minimal parts of the country's forest area were inventoried.

A relatively recent review – I believe it is the forestry professor Peter Holmgren who has conducted it – also shows that a small group of approximately 20 people accounted for 52 percent of all reports of rot linked to logging notifications, and this occurred over a little more than one year. In principle, all reports were also judged to be unvalidated.

In practice, this means that the state's generous sharing of private individuals' reports, which are not administrative decisions, combined with the fact that commonly occurring species are protected, has given approximately 20 private individuals, who in no way strive for a balance between economy, jobs, exports, climate benefits, and consideration for nature, the opportunity to exercise a power almost similar to that of an authority over 300,000 forest owners.

It is this ongoing abuse affecting Swedish forest owners that certain parties want to cement through doomsday rhetoric about, for example, the imminent depletion of the mountain forests, which only exists if one ignores reality. Naturally, those parties are free to build up fantasy worlds and to radicalize like-minded people from a comfortable distance from the unkempt countryside. The rest of Sweden, the government included, needs to and should not participate in that farce.

It is, as said, worryingly quiet regarding the species protection regulation. It was supposed to arrive by New Year's and is still hidden behind the walls of the Government Offices. Not a sound has been heard about what has been concluded so far. But last summer, the Minister for the Environment made a statement in a press release where she said: Only when it is necessary to protect the most worthy species to be protected and where the total national population can be expected to be significantly negatively affected by the specific intervention, should the national protection regulations be able to entail considerably complicating restrictions on use.

That means, in bureaucrat-speak, that it is only the species that are most worthy of protection and rare that should be able to prevent forestry. In the press text, the knärot (root rot) is also mentioned as an example of a species that, with the help of the investigation, should not prevent forestry, Madam Speaker. That is good.

But nowhere is it pointed out that this shall also apply to commonly occurring birds. Today, the state allows you to shoot black grouse. But if you want to manage your own forest and if it happens that there are lekking black grouse at that location, the state can actually put you in financial ruin. It is at least as unreasonable as a common little wood grouse making it so that you cannot fell your forest and are left without compensation.

The question is how much tax money should be poured into the protection of species that are commonly occurring. If the rules regarding the birds are not reviewed, we will also not achieve a more legally secure forestry in Sweden. In that case, it doesn't matter that the Minister for the Environment says she looks forward to Sweden's forest owners feeling secure in the future. For then, my friends, the emperor is nevertheless naked.

(Applause)

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 26 March.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)